Why modern atheism is so shallow

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Originally Posted by ajblaise

It's denying in that they are denying to believe in God(s), that's true. But to me that's a lot different than pro activity stating "There is no God". They aren't necessarily trying to make a statement just by not believing.

LOL. That reminds me of the scene in Caddyshack when Rodney sees the ugly hat in the pro shop and says "Wow, when you buy that hat you must get a free bowl of soup!" and then he sees Ted Knight wearing it and says, "Oh, but it looks good on YOU."

[Mempy]

I definitely think you can have doubt/nonbelief yourself, but still profess that there might be a god, i.e. that you don't know whether God exists or not. "I don't believe in/think much about/worship God, but He might exist."

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Originally Posted by Mempy

I definitely think you can have doubt/nonbelief yourself, but still profess that there might be a god, i.e. that you don't know whether God exists or not. "I don't believe in/think much about/worship God, but He might exist."

I don't know. I still see that kind of disconnect as intellectual dishonesty, even if it's in the service of making nice with people who have different beliefs than you. How can you say that you don't believe something to be true, yet say you can't deny its existence? To me, that's like saying you can't 100% rule out that the Earth isn't flat even if you don't believe it is.

[ajblaise]

Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou

I don't know. I still see that kind of disconnect as intellectual dishonesty, even if it's in the service of making nice with people who have different beliefs than you. How can you say that you don't believe something to be true, yet say you can't deny its existence? To me, that's like saying you can't 100% rule out that the Earth isn't flat even if you don't believe it is.

If someone acknowledges that there is the possibility of there being a God while at the same time they don't necessarily personally believe in one, I'm not seeing where intellectual dishonesty fits into that at all.

It seems like one of the most humble positions you can take on the issue.

[Bella]

Originally Posted by ajblaise

If someone acknowledges that there is the possibility of there being a God while at the same time they don't necessarily personally believe in one, I'm not seeing where intellectual dishonesty fits into that at all.

It seems like one of the most humble positions you can take on the issue.

Uh-huh.

[Mempy]

Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou

I don't know. I still see that kind of disconnect as intellectual dishonesty, even if it's in the service of making nice with people who have different beliefs than you. How can you say that you don't believe something to be true, yet say you can't deny its existence? To me, that's like saying you can't 100% rule out that the Earth isn't flat even if you don't believe it is.

You can say that about God because God can't be proven to be true or untrue. How can you say, "God does/does not exist" without referencing faith? You can say, "I don't have faith in God, but don't know if He exists," because nobody KNOWS whether He exists or not. There's a difference between believing and knowing. Likewise, you can say, "I believe in God, but don't KNOW whether He exists or not."

You can not be convinced enough to believe in something that can't be proven or disproven conclusively, but admit that you could be wrong. That's basically what I mean when I say, "I don't believe in God, but I'm open to the possibility that He exists and I'm wrong, because who's to say?"

The earth being flat analogy isn't an apt one, I think. I mean, we're dealing with things that can't be proven when we're talking about God. If you could not prove conclusively that the earth was flat or not, you'd be right to say you don't absolutely know whether it's flat or not.

I personally think my way is the only really logical way to look at it. How can you KNOW if God exists or not? You can't. You can only have faith one way or the other. As AJ and Bella have said, I think it's humble.

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Originally Posted by Mempy

I personally think my way is the only really logical way to look at it. How can you KNOW if God exists or not? You can't. You can only have faith one way or the other. As AJ and Bella have said, I think it's humble.

I guess I see it as more wishy-washy and conciliatory than humble. I mean, if you are not convinced that God exists but cannot discount the possibility, then just say "I don't know" instead of saying you're an atheist. Same thing for believing he probably exists but not being convinced. There's no reason to choose up sides if you aren't convinced either way. I guess maybe what I'm really arguing for is for more people to call themselves agnostics.

[Mempy]

I do call myself agnostic. But if the criteria for being agnostic is simply admitting you don't know for sure, I think technically everyone in the world is an agnostic, because nobody CAN know.

[Cimarron]

Originally Posted by ajblaise

Being a theist is kind of a default position for many people, who are brought up into it...

...for some people in some circumstances. You seem to be considering only a specific portion of the discussion.

[ajblaise]

Originally Posted by Cimarron

...for some people in some circumstances. You seem to be considering only a specific portion of the discussion.

What percent of people in America are brought up, to some degree, to be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim? 70%? 80%? 90%?

I know there is a very low percentage of atheists in America, and a lot of them probably don't promote atheism to their kids. So it appears that we are talking about more than just some people.